[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6476680,"mediaKeyId","5717628-3503b55ec14933a603495a73f09111d4","parentId",5717628,"title","Board approves micro school, sign variance and two residential care special exceptions","audioSeconds",1264,"startMs",565000,"endMs",1829000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5717628-3503b55ec14933a603495a73f09111d4&start=565&end=1829","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5717628-3503b55ec14933a603495a73f09111d4/thumbnail_565000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6476680/Columbia-City/Richland-County/South-Carolina/Board-approves-micro-school-sign-variance-and-two-residential-care-special-exceptions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6476680-702a5a4ed5ef221bec8bc427fcc8f6b1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771213745&Signature=dhdLuMT~d0NF7fUhYFGJ162WQqbjt8kT~ObHfSdpWR6caL4uBHLikj1kBYvq~OCvPa1IGyMTnmcC39FaLp1LCpu2-3wdpxGikSnzHMiL5AuvH6yDRnpNnX9JBpEgztRybI609r8znsmMWkK20cojD~qOUbn-MYAAzzv5fa-r9EXyUohHQQjic~SzEvtQxduivO7g7slhv7jF191oyQPqxHbp1lxgaVYpab3TnKc52ClzSXluXnbRDNo~FZp~NyHkbVDCtOhV8BM0DZ8FzFZaLF8xPBCQ9E9Gehc7MVb2owz-oGTcr9q54m5itn6GAuoL0w6R1s1xcE65vCqIDHyNdA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Columbia","date","2025-09-02T21:17:04Z","article","COLUMBIA, S.C. \u000027 The City of Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals on Sept. 4 approved multiple special exceptions and a sign-variance request, clearing four items moved from the consent agenda to the regular docket.

Key votes at the meeting:

- 1433 Gregg Street (special exception): Approved a request to establish a micro school (Open Learning Academy pilot) serving elementary-age special-needs students in an existing MU-1 building. Applicant Virginia Wells said the program would open with two classes of roughly six to eight students and that the building would remain intact while a small playground would be added. The board approved the special exception subject to staff comments.

- 1431 Assembly Street (temporary sign variance): Approved a variance to increase the maximum display area for temporary signage at Richland Library. Keosha Boyles, marketing and communications director for Richland Library, said the increased temporary sign area would be used to promote free public programming and that the staff-recommended condition (that total permanent plus temporary signage not exceed the site standard) was acceptable. Staff noted the site's total allowable sign area is about 708 square feet and recommended a condition tying temporary signage to future permanent signage so total display area does not exceed the standard.

- 3332 Leesburg Road A (residential care facility for adult women): Jacqueline Chisholm, founder and CEO of When You Can't Cope There is Hope Transition House, requested a special exception to operate a transitional residential care facility. The application was amended during review from 10 to six residents after SCAR certification requirements showed the property had only one full bathroom and one half bath, which does not meet requirements for 10 residents. Chisholm said residents are not allowed to have personal vehicles while in the program; staffing, quiet hours and a transportation plan were described in the application. The board approved the special exception subject to staff comments.

- 1925 Marion Street (intake and assessment center for children): Lutheran Services Carolinas sought a special exception to use 1925 Marion Street as an intake and assessment center for children entering the child-welfare system. Bethany Boss, executive director for child and adult services for Lutheran Services Carolinas, said the facility has operated at the location since 2019 and that children would stay no longer than seven days while clinicians determine appropriate placement. The Robert Mills Historic District Neighborhood Association, represented by Dr. Breedlove, reported having toured the facility and said the neighborhood did not anticipate negative impacts. The board approved the special exception subject to staff comments.

Each of the four items was moved from the consent agenda at the request of a speaker and voted on in open session. Votes were recorded by voice and the board adopted staff-recommended conditions where noted.

Why it matters: The approvals allow new local services to proceed: a micro school for students with specialized needs, expanded library advertising for public programs, a transitional home for women in recovery, and a short-term intake/assessment center to place children into appropriate child-welfare placements. Several of the items carried neighborhood engagement: the Robert Mills Historic District Neighborhood Association engaged with applicants and provided comments in support of two items.

Ending: The board concluded the meeting after the final votes and an extended hearing on a separate appeal (Quail Lane). The items approved at this meeting proceed subject to staff conditions and any required permitting steps.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Zoning Appeals | September 4, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At its Sept. 4 meeting the City of Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals approved special exceptions for a micro school, a library sign variance, a residential care facility for adult women, and an intake/assessment facility for children, all subject to staff conditions.","taxTitle","Columbia City, Richland County, South Carolina","taxId",3706,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6476685,"Zoning board upholds city interpretation: fenced outdoor pool does not qualify as 'fully enclosed' for home-occupation swim lessons",3415,1901000,5316000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5717628-3503b55ec14933a603495a73f09111d4&start=1901&end=5316","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5717628-3503b55ec14933a603495a73f09111d4/thumbnail_1901000.jpg","/articles/6476685/Columbia-City/Richland-County/South-Carolina/Zoning-board-upholds-city-interpretation-fenced-outdoor-pool-does-not-qualify-as-fully-enclosed-for-home-occupation-swim-lessons","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6476685-d438422bebb275c75a20928296200fdc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771213745&Signature=BrI2FiNRUgo4OK~nk9V2RPWK39sbNGlBcrN4JeUPeEEnzcNauzt13USPaqh9uU3SNj8zPOdot8ForaA~0NnZmdit1DhGInmNwo6XNh0g-pxWu2JIX-ColVD7leVldO7UhJJHl4m8GFEetwzTpLVR4UW4FACvwxrXPpybbhEIYr--HuDdpBEbv-4nr3l3ebVIvIM6PyInnQzjEHk5~DJY9YUmT8pc~hc2JxODcUJDliqevAv0Q3cCH1s0wD5M39aPjR5E07d2marQKV0k5KAEhWy~Tpar5gqBzohR0xOWBHin20UuQHc1hxGSWQPCoELaWz~-zvw792LEjArz7z74BQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","COLUMBIA, S.C. — The City of Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals on Sept. 4 upheld a zoning administrator determination that an outdoor pool enclosed only by a fence does not qualify as a \"fully enclosed\" structure under the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for purposes of a home-occupation permit. The decision leaves in place restrictions that prevent a resident business operator from offering on-site private swim lessons at that address unless the activity is moved into a fully enclosed structure or off-site.

Why it matters: The ruling affects a long-running neighborhood dispute in the Lake Catherine area and will require the swim-lesson operator to shift lessons off the property or alter the property to meet the UDO standard. Supporters said the lessons provide an important public-safety service for children, including special-needs students; neighbors said the scale of activity and traffic have interfered with residential use.

The board\u000027s action followed a full hearing that included legal argument, testimony from neighbors on both sides, and an executive-session attempt to obtain legal advice. Attorney Jeffrey Chambers, representing the appellant and property owners, told the board the outdoor pool had been in operation since 2018, that the business had obtained a city business license, and that the city issued notices of violation in 2024 after a new nearby buyer raised complaints. Chambers argued the city\u000027s written interpretation was procedurally defective because an application and completeness determination required by the UDO were not made before the interpretation was issued on July 9, 2025. Chambers also cited common-dictionary definitions and a claimed average sound-level reading of about \"30 to 40 decibels\" at the property line to argue that the pool use did not create the nuisance the city described. He read part of the code into the record, including the UDO language about outdoor pools: \"All outdoor swimming pools shall be completely enclosed by a barrier meeting the requirements hereafter specified,\" and argued that an existing fence satisfied that language.

Zoning Administrator Andrew Livingood countered that the UDO requires a fully enclosed structure for home occupations \u000027in the sense of a structure\u000027 (with enclosure on all sides and overhead), and that a fenced yard is not the same as a roofed, fully enclosed structure. \"A yard is not a structure,\" Livingood said during the hearing, arguing the home-occupation standard aims to keep business activities indistinguishable from normal residential appearance and to avoid commercial activity conducted outdoors in yards.

Public comment was split. Resident and former planning commission chair Robert Smith urged the board to \"use a common sense approach\" and noted other South Carolina municipalities that allow outdoor pools for instruction, while nearby neighbor Jim Bu said the operation had produced parking, traffic and noise concerns and that adjacent residents had not been given adequate notice. Several neighbors, including Michael Hedgecock and Rebecca McLauchorn, testified in support of the swim program and said they had not experienced problems.

The board moved into executive session to try to obtain legal advice and to allow members to discuss the interpretation. Assistant City Attorney Mike Hemlep told the board after executive session that city counsel had attempted to reach BOZA\u000027s attorney but had not been able to and that city counsel did not provide legal advice to the independent board in executive session.

On returning to open session members attempted a motion to reverse the zoning administrator's determination but that motion failed. A subsequent motion to uphold the zoning administrator's interpretation carried on a voice vote. Chair Catherine Fenner explained the board's conclusion in open session: \"The structure has to be completely enclosed. The fact that it's got a fence around it is nice, but that's not relevant. The fact that it may or may not create noise... is not relevant. What is apparently relevant... is that it has to be within a fully enclosed structure. It is not within a fully enclosed structure. So therefore, we are denying the motion.\"

What happens next: The decision upholds the zoning administrator's written interpretation; the operator may pursue alternatives discussed at the hearing such as conducting lessons at an indoor facility or at other pools under contract. The decision does not itself impose criminal penalties, and the transcript records prior notices of violation but not a criminal citation. The appellant referenced an ongoing legal challenge in court seeking declaratory relief related to the city\u000027s actions.

Ending: The board\u000027s ruling resolves a contested local zoning interpretation but is likely to leave the neighborhood and the swim-lesson operator seeking interim arrangements while any court challenges or appeals proceed.

","The City of Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals on Sept. 4 upheld the zoning administrator\u000027s written interpretation that an outdoor pool enclosed by fence does not meet the UDO\u000027s definition of a fully enclosed structure for home occupations, denying an appeal from Swim Columbia and the property owner.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board approves micro school, sign variance and two residential care special exceptions

Zoning board upholds city interpretation: fenced outdoor pool does not qualify as 'fully enclosed' for home-occupation swim lessons